That's a cheap shot.

Well, I guess that's the root of it. Other then judging the realism of something I don't think cinema can really be analyzed without inserting one's own standards on it. Even when it comes to realism, I don't think you can criticize unless then film claims to be a realistic depiction. U93 really doesn't. A movie can't actually study anything for the same reason that a scientist can't theorize without some basis in experimentation. At best it can show what can or might be, and the impact of that is based on how the film relates to the tastes and emotional response of the audience.

I found it believable that the response to the movie was related to it being about 9/11 until I saw the movie. I know that the way my heart pounded was entirely because of the way the film was made, and not it's material. I find it easy to believe others who say the same.

Now, if everything were the same except it being about 9/11, would people have responded differently? Overall, I suspect the answer is somewhat a yes, but that doesn't mean credit isn't due to Greengrass for what he accomplished.

So... I was SOOO going to see this...

And then... I read the reviews... and now... It's going to be another Crash...

A movie that I'm sure I will see eventually. A movie I'll probably cry in. A movie that I think will suck after all is said and done.



Oh United 93! How you disappoint me!!!

What United 93 shares with Crash is that they both rely almost exclusively on the power of manipulation.

I'm going to strongly disagree with you here.

I'll admit Crash did this, but I don't think U93 did at all.

Opening with a prayer to Allah?

Taping the Capital Building to the yoke?

Showing the second plane strike the WTC?

All throughout United 93, there are these bits that only exist to manipulate the viewer. They don't move the story along.

Exactly my thought as well. I haven't seen the film (will check it out this week), but from the majority of the reactions here and else where, I certainly believe the film would be equally powerful to a lot of people even if it's entirely fiction, even if 9/11 never occurred and the movie were only grabbing the idea from some Tom Clancy novel.

I actually agree with loyal. The film is incredibly manipulative. He gave some great examples above.

However, the key difference between it and Crash is nearly everything in Crash rings false. United 93 has some humanity and soul behind it.

I think a lot of you should try seperating yourself from the film emotionally. Technically, it's just not that good. Emotionally, it's a powerhouse.

I also agree. To me that shows true through the comments from posters here and from critics who talk about how the film is a celebration of humanity (and is not just an "America 9/11 raw raw" film) and is extremely restrained (no overblown slow motion, no cliche flashbacks, etc).

PEACE, Mike.

I'm beginning to think it's nearly impossible for people to seperate themselves from the film.

And Xiayun, I hardly think the film would be nearly as popular if it was based on Clancy. In fact, I'm sure people would say it paled in comparion to Greengrass' own Bourne film.

I really, honestly do not for a second believe that is true. If 9/11 had never occured I really don't think there'd be a tear in the theater. It might've been well recieved still, but I have a feeling MANY more people would see the mostly mess/bore of a hijacking film I saw. It's just not great, and if you don't have the connection to the incredibly powerful, important day of 9/11 you lose pretty much EVERYTHING on which the film is based (emotionally, anyway, which is what I think is holding the film together for most people.)

But...well. I dunno.

And why should they? The director didn't seperate himself from it either. I think contextualizing a film adds another layer to it, and I applaud directors for drawing from life experiences. I just hope they do it in creative and insightful ways. And yes, if I do agree with what and/or how they are trying to talk about a subject, than I might advocate for the movie a little more (though poor quality, see The Corporation review, will certainly affect evaluation).

There's little that would seperate U93 from, say, Air Force One, unless it was for the fact that it is supposed to "speak," shape, and reshape an experience that we all feel we directly relate to in various ways. (The downing of Air Force One and the death of our president is hypothetical right now. If it actually happened, I'm sure people would have said something very different about a movie about a President trying to retake the plane from terrorists). Now, we relate to it in various ways, i.e. we will respond to it differently. And yes, I will say it depends heavily on our memory for emotional impact. And perhaps when that memory fades, for a generation only being born ten years from now, they will look at this movie and "not get it" the way we got it, but will read the film in a completely different way.

Maybe, they'll be like makeshift and say that sans the emotional response due to the actual experience, the invoked response due to the reproduced experience falls flat. Maybe they won't. People, like you loyal and kypade, that are pushing to remove the emotional aspect of actually living the event, you are looking at this movie like someone who will see it ten years from now. It would be very interesting to see how someone who is 20 in 2030 will talk about this.

That's when I epxect to see a diversity of experiences to the movie.

Edit...
Check later (hopefully)

Why should we have to do that?

If we have emotional connections to the subject matter of a film, shouldn't those add to our experience in the theater?

Don't seperate yourself then, but also don't weigh the quality of the film based on your emotional response.

That is never possible completely, no matter what anyone claims.

You don't have emotional connections to the subject matter of the film, you have emotional connections to September 11th, 2001.

Of course it is. It's perfectly possible for me to say that I loved Streetfighter while at the same time recognising it as a terrible movie.

I have a feeling United 93 and Streetfighter have a lot more in common than it would seem on first glance.

Seriously a very difficult film to grade.

I'm not exactly sure what to say, so I'll cover it in two parts: content and production.

Content wise the film was really beyond words. It was perhaps one of the most intense films of recent memory and certainly did not at all fail to illicit the desired audience reaction. However unlike other films such as Crash which blatently wear their heart on their sleeve -- don't get me wrong I quite enjoyed Crash, this film pulls on viewers emotions but doesn't seem to have an agenda behind it other then the telling of the story.

It is certainly quite gripping how it is told and the mix between ground control and in-flight sequences is quite dramatic and well done. The in-flight sequences are perhaps the most difficult to watch and sometimes almost painful as they seem quite real. On the same token though, the filmmakers know, and use, all of the ploys to illicit a certain reaction. From teary-eyed phone calls to highlighting certain passengers, they aren't subtle at all.

Production wise the film is far from flawless and has some major issues from time to time. Some of the performances really aren't great and parts of the dialogue lacks. The shaky camera work, a trademark of director Greengrass is ok at times but also annoying at times. Other then that the overall production is quite narrow so there isn't a great deal of room for error.

Overall its a film that is hard to recommend because it feels like in a lot of ways it isn't needed. It is griping, but not entertaining, though could one expect a film such as this to entertain? It certainly does help to solidify the mythology of what really happened on flight 93, and in some ways gives viewers a tangible recollection of the events. It brings the passengers above simple bystanders but stops at making them larger then life. We see them as humans, just as we see the hijackers in a lot of ways as humans, albeit sadly misguided.

It isn't a film that would be good on repeat viewings and as stated it feels like it is opening an old wound. Many people will never forget that day and while the film solidifies certain things it also brings back memories that were perhaps best left repressed.

No Grade

No Grade...

Don't think that at all. I hated CRASH, it was such a manipulitive piece of shit. This isn't.

It really is though.

While I was "moved" by it, and left speechless, in a lot of ways it is manipulative. Face it, did this movie need to be made? What does it accomplish? Certainly not entertainment. Certainly doesn't make a statement or something like that. It solidifies a mythological event that nobody will ever know the truth of the events.

I for one, could have done without the film honestly. It felt like it was reopening old wounds to me. If it hadn't been for the fact that I was with a friend, I honestly would have likely walked out of the film.

The more I read back on this thread the more I agree with your comments. I had only read a few posts as I didn't want to go in to the movie with higher or lower expectations then I already had.

To me it moved me emotionally but not because of the film. Like I've said before it felt like opening an old wound. When the video footage of the second plane hitting was shown I got a chill, because I was watching live TV. I was sitting there on the phone with my dad when it happened, and I remember everything. What I was wearing. What I said. What I did.

To me it was one of the worst days of my life because I felt utterly helpless. And so to watch some of those events reoccur to me had a greater effect then the film itself.

The film itself I don't think was anything spectacular. I think it is the emotional connection of people who have memories of that day who are more effected by the film. I know I'll never forget it.

I also don't recommend the film. Nor will I ever see it again.

Like I said, it's as objective as a film of this nature could possibly be without completely losing it's audience. The story it's based on is slightly jingoistic in nature, so to expect the film to be 50/50 is just unrealistic. It's an American produced film based on an American story that has reached mythological heights produced for an American audience. Knowing that, it plays out about as even as it could.

It's not the end all documentary but it'll do for now.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

I almost feel like I'm part of a small band of warriors fighting against a much larger enemy. I know I'll never win but I decide to fight the good fight anyway.